From Taibbi v. Kamlager-Dovedetermined Monday by Choose Evelyn Padin (D.N.J.):
Consultant Kamlager-Dove … is … the Rating Member of the South and Central Asia Subcommittee of the Home International Affairs Committee …. The Subcommittee held a listening to on April 1, 2025, titled “Censorship Industrial Complicated: The Want for First Modification Safeguards on the State Division” …. Taibbi was invited to testify on the Listening to. Initially of the Listening to, Consultant Kamlager-Dove delivered her ready remarks, which included the next statements:
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks for being right here for our first South and Central Asia Subcommittee listening to. I look ahead to working with the Chair in a bipartisan approach on the important points we’re charged with overseeing.
Sadly, we’re not having a listening to about any of these. As a substitute, this Subcommittee is losing taxpayer time and sources on the fifth such listening to Republicans have held throughout a number of committees on the so-called “censorship-industrial complicated.”
The bulk is relitigating a made-up conspiracy principle about part of the State Division that not exists to distract from the dumpster fireplace overseas coverage this Administration is pursuing—and elevating a serial sexual harasser as their star witness within the course of.
The identical day of the Listening to, Consultant Kamlager-Dove reposted a video of the Statements on two social media platforms: X (previously Twitter) and BlueSky. Each posts contained the identical assertion: “After this, Republicans gave Matt Taibbi time to defend himself. It is telling that he did not.” … Consultant Kamlager-Dove additionally posted the Statements on her official Home.gov web site….
Taibbi alleges that the “serial sexual harasser” remark by Consultant Kamlager-Dove was directed at him and that it’s “demonstrably false” and “made with precise malice.” Taibbi claims that the republications of the Statements—the X, BlueSky, and Web site Posts—had been defamatory ….
Members of Congress, like different workers, are lined by the Westfall Act, beneath which, if “the defendant qualifies as an ‘worker of the federal government,’ and the Lawyer Common certifies that the worker ‘was performing inside the scope of his workplace or employment,'” the U.S. authorities is substituted as defendant for the worker. And although the AG’s certification is reviewable, right here the courtroom agreed that “Consultant Kamlager-Dove’s statements had been inside the scope of her employment.” Some excerpts:
Right here, Taibbi challenges Consultant Kamlager-Dove’s statements “made throughout a congressional listening to in Washington, D.C.” which allegedly “turned actionable defamatory statements” once they had been “republished … on social media websites.” Taibbi argues that “crowing to voters, and self-aggrandizement to voters on X and Bluesky will not be official congressional work however partisan communication.” Taibbi claims the Statements had been republished to “bolster [Representative Kamlager-Dove’s] political standing.”
Consultant Kamlager-Dove’s Statements and republications, nevertheless, are exactly the sort of conduct that’s “a central a part of the job for members of Congress.” Certainly, a “major obligation of a [m]ember of Congress in a consultant democracy is to serve and reply to his or her constituents.” Because the Rating Member of the Subcommittee holding the Listening to, Consultant Kamlager-Dove’s remarks talked about “taxpayer time and sources” and “overseas coverage”—subjects which can be vital to members of Congress and which can be top-of-mind for his or her constituents.
Republishing the statements on-line doesn’t change the evaluation. Taibbi claims that the “republications on X, BlueSky, and [Representative Kamlager-Dove’s] web site weren’t legislative work, [and] occurred exterior the legislative setting.” However members of Congress routinely interact with the general public on social media and on the web as a part of their jobs. As Taibbi concedes, Consultant Kamlager-Dove was merely “speaking to voters on Twitter.” …
As a member of Congress, Consultant Kamlager-Dove has a “correct obligation” to “look diligently into each affair of presidency and to speak a lot about what [she] sees.” And he or she did so on the Listening to. Along with the allegedly defamatory assertion, Consultant Kamlager-Dove mentioned taxes, overseas coverage, and immigration coverage. She explicitly said political disagreement with the opposing social gathering in her social media posts, writing: “Republicans gave Matt Taibbi time to defend himself. It is telling that he did not.” Political statements by members of Congress—corresponding to Consultant Kamlager-Dove’s right here—are made inside their scope of employment.
Consultant Kamlager-Dove’s statements “had been calculated to serve the pursuits of [her] constituents (i.e., employers) by informing them of [her] views concerning” sure points, legal guidelines, and insurance policies. Put merely, Consultant Kamlager-Dove’s statements had been “out of an curiosity in serving the general public [and her constituents]—even when [s]he was partially motivated” by different political causes.
So the U.S. authorities was correctly substituted for Rep. Kamlager-Dove—and that doomed Taibbi’s defamation declare, as a result of the Federal Tort Claims Act, beneath which the U.S. authorities waived its sovereign immunity as to many tort claims, “expressly excludes defamation claims from the federal authorities’s immunity waiver.” So due to the Westfall Act, Taibbi loses in opposition to Rep. Kamlager-Dove; and due to the FTCA exclusion of defamation claims, he loses in opposition to the federal authorities.
Word that the Speech or Debate Clause bars defamation lawsuits over statements made in Congressional hearings or associated official proceedings. It by itself does not cowl members’ republication of these statements on social media.
Stephen Terrell of the DoJ Civil Division represents defendant.
